Image not available

1404x989

objection.png

🧵 Grammatical Objectification

Anonymous No. 16305618

I’ve been noticing that, a lot of the time, people express opinions in a way that makes it seem they are objective facts.

For example, “This coffee is bad” seems more objective than “I dislike this coffee” even though they both express the same opinion.

We may have different attitudes and understandings toward an opinion based on whether it is objectified or not. Objectified opinions may be subconsciously more challenging to reject sometimes. After all, they are used as a persuasion technique.

I believe this all started as a survival mechanism in early societies. Back then, agreeing with your group was crucial for survival. So, having shared opinions as if they were rules of the world might have been necessary to raise a sense of shared comfort on which to build a society.

What do you think?

Anonymous No. 16305647

>>16305618
>I’ve been noticing that
>a lot of the time
Would you consider your very first sentence to be an example of an objectified opinion, or not?

Anonymous No. 16305650

>>16305647
Nope! It's an explicit observation.

Anonymous No. 16305766

>>16305618
In school we were taught "I dislike this coffee" is weak and self-centered while "This coffee is bad" is a strong statement and independent of one's self, which made it a superior form of expression.

Anonymous No. 16305867

>>16305618
I consider this a nice meta post, especially as you haven't seemed to properly filter your observations through the critique you appear to be making. I went ahead and made your post what I would call unironic in order to uncover the truth I believe you may be trying to make.

SUBJECT: My Opinion of Grammatical Objectification

I have been noticing |from my perspecptive|, a lot of the time, people express opinions in a way that makes it seem |to me| they are objective facts.

For example, "This coffee is bad" seems more objective |to me| than "I dislike this coffee" even though they both express the same opinion |IMHO|.

I believe we may have different attitudes and understandings toward an opinion on whether it is objectified or not. |I think| objectified opinions may be subconsciously more challenging to reject sometimes. After all, |I think| they are used as a persuasion technique.

I believe this all started as a survival mechanism in early societies. Back then, |the theory is| agreeing with your group was crucial for survival. So, |in other words, what I believe this is saying is| having shared opinions as if they were rules of the world might have been necessary to raise a sense of shared comfort on which to build a society.

What do you think |of my diary desu|?

Anonymous No. 16305896

>>16305867
Not OP but I'm curious about your use of the | symbol in place of what appears to be where parentheses would go in most variants of English. Is this the correct punctuation in your culture? Or were they intended to be something similar in function to brackets? I've never seen this usage before so I'm very curious.

Anonymous No. 16306013

>>16305896
No, '|' would be a bad symbol to use in a formal circumstance because it doesn't have an open and closing, which unnecessarily adds to ambiguous readings. The issue is that other limiters already have intended meaning.
[added context]
(supplemental information)
{editor's notes}
<tags>
(((banking)))

Anonymous No. 16306085

>>16305867
Your version just adds redundancies...

Anonymous No. 16306538

>>16305618
Rethorics is a very interesting field. Maybe you should step out of your comfort zone and take a plunge into humanities. Try epistemology and linguistics

Anonymous No. 16306694

>>16306538
Yes this stems from my linguistic thoughts.